Meta

Dark AnCap

As a matter of simple socio-cultural documentation, this is the thought-process that leads libertarian realists to discover they have crossed over to the Outer Right:

All people are not equal. In fact, two individuals who are in every socially discernible way the same, have an infinite number of differences between them. When those people have evolved for thousands of years in radically different environments, those people will have even greater differences between them. Such differences will include but not be limited to intelligence, propensity for violence, and propensity for cooperation.

Any libertarian with the slightest bit of observational skills has to have noticed that we’re mostly a movement of white males. They would also notice that there is no libertarian movement to speak of outside of cultures descendant from Europeans. This is not a weakness of libertarianism, as our leftist infiltrators attempt to insist. It is rather a very obvious indicator that white males have a greater natural inclination toward market cooperation than other peoples. To insist otherwise is nothing more than the denial of human nature, it is biological and cultural Marxism.

Leftists know this, and since they hate freedom, they hate white males. They will thus do everything in their power to destroy us before we manage to make any headway in advancing our ideas. This includes mass subsidized immigration from third world countries.

While our ideal society would have no government and thus no arbitrary geopolitical borders enforced by State mercenaries, the notion that there would be free and unrestricted travel the world over in the absence of the State is a remarkably ridiculous left wing idea. Borders are the whole point of freedom, as borders are demarcations of property rights.

It’s the beginning, rather than the end, of a discussion. (XS finds a few quibble points, and far more in the rest of the post.) For anybody wondering about current mutations on the Libertarian Right, however, the basic structure of insight on exhibition here is the place to start.

Euro-descended (and specifically Anglo-Dutch descended) males are differentially inclined to libertarian attitudes, to a remarkable degree (statistically speaking). Disentangling race and culture in this regard is far from straightforward. The sex-based dispositional difference is far less noisy. (Of course, the Marxoid explanation is that doubly-privileged Whites Males are defending their social advantages through this ideological preference.) Also notable, IMHO, is the (almost?) equally marked tendency of European peoples towards extreme, highly-idealized and morally-fanatic leftism — compared to the conceptually-fuzzy tribal and communitarian sensibilities widespread elsewhere. Bleeding-heart Left-libertarianism is about as distilled-White as anything ever gets — but with that remark, I’m already straying into the quibble-zone.

Seems to contradict how there is hardly any trace of libertarianism in Europe, it is mostly liberal socialism and nationalistic socialism. Or should I take it as the suggestion that basically white-America became the new Europeans and old Europeans became something else?

In terms of media and population numbers, you are right. However, the most hardcore and consistent libertarians and ideological reactionaries are to be found in the UK (Sean Gabb in the first case, Jonathan Bowden in the second, for example); and pretty much all the rest are European (and tend to be more hardcore/educated than America’s republican-libertarians) such as Anthony de Jasay and the late L. v. Mises (whose name may echo, but was as Euro-Bourgeousie as they come). Pro-market people and limited-government approaches are almost entirely pragmatic and communitarian in China, even though those people are actually more friendly to markets in a practical and moral sense than most Euros are (the latter being Socialist nuts, as you observe).

Dark AnCaps understand there is no real disconnect between strong social structure and freedom of association. Unfettered choice allows only the responsible to thrive. Once an AnCap accepts the logical end of this thought, he accepts force will degrade quality of production but strong (free) associations tend to lead to the opposite.

I tend to see this exactly from the other way around: ancap seems utopian because it would require an at least 100 IQ, highly peaceful and highly civilized population as an input. In such a situation, the market could slowly correct and weed out bad behavior, for example, drug abuse. In reality there are a lot of stupid people around with poor impulse control, usually nonwhites, but also white chavs in Britain and other nonwhite types count, too. Anyway, you notice after a while that instead of the market pushing them off drugs, drugs push them off the market. They will live a non-market existence of crime etc. and it is basically too costly to deal with and does too much damage to normal folks. At this point, you will probably want to control their behavior, through the state, it is hard to see any other solution, at least I don’t know many, because how exactly to get rid of them.

So one of my issues with libertarianism is the general, tacit assumption of perfect law enforcement. Often you have to be smarter here and control behavior that does not lead to directly harming others but quite likely will, because it kills an individuals ability for impulse control. The other issue is the tacit assumption that individuals will either improve or starve to death if the market does not reward their behavior. No. They will grab guns and go down fighting, or become gangsters, or vote for socialists. And yes, this has a lot to do with the current human genetic stock not being so perfect, not even in the first world, if men were angels, there was no need for government. So governing well is about PREVENTING people from becoming the kind of person who would violate the natural rights of others while ancap principles mean you cannot use violence until they actually do it.

Governing well is hard. For example, Progs suck at it. But refusing to do it completely is no alternative.

I think good government has a theoretically obvious but practically brutal requirement: if elites regularly have to face war or natural disaster that would destroy them too they will care about keeping the plebs highly functional. I can’t really think of anything else. Only external competition can keep the leaders of any community actually competitive.

“So one of my issues with libertarianism is the general, tacit assumption of perfect law enforcement.”

AnCap certainly doesn’t assume this. It just says it is all private and if disputes arise those stay private and so on.

But AnCap doesn’t address how a group of men who discover many inefficiencies created by a lacking central authority won’t begin building defacto organs of the State.

Or what an AnCap would be sacrificing by lacking a State in a world where competitors do organize into States.

” In such a situation, the market could slowly correct and weed out bad behavior, for example, drug abuse.”

Based on what mechanism would the market “weed out bad behavior.” Markets operate on choice. For the market to “weed out bad behavior” of say drug abuse, it would have to either eliminate the choice (can’t do that without the State) or the cost would have to be too high (and drugs are very cheap). This is a ridiculous proposition.

“They want unchecked debauchery, irresponsibility, and reality detachment, because this makes for a more easily ruled civilization. If Bruce Jenner can become a woman, or Rachel Dolezal can become black, then the concept that human beings have a nature is undermined. Popular opinion and marketing campaigns can take the place of obvious truths, and once one is willing to accept that sort of thought process, communism is not far off. After all, if human beings have no nature, then there are no economic laws aside from those set by the State.”

>Based on what mechanism would the market “weed out bad behavior.” Markets operate on choice. For the market to “weed out bad behavior” of say drug abuse, it would have to either eliminate the choice (can’t do that without the State) or the cost would have to be too high (and drugs are very cheap). This is a ridiculous proposition.

The price of recklessly doing drugs for a human, in a free market situation, is the same as the price a zebra will pay for hanging out too far from the herd. Remove the welfare state and Darwin does the rest.

Different T Reply:January 26th, 2016 at 6:26 am

Remove the welfare state and Darwin does the rest.

That seems a bit far-fetched.

admin Reply:January 26th, 2016 at 7:05 am

It’s not that far-fetched. (Difficult to do, and keep done, though.)

Xoth Reply:January 26th, 2016 at 6:17 pm

It, it makes me break out in song. The hills are alive … with the sound of music!

Imagine there’s no welfare
It’s easy if you try
No NAMs below us
Above us only Gnon
Imagine all the people
Steering their patrimony…

Imagine there’s no progress
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
No progressives too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace…

You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you’ll join us
And the world will be a patchwork one

Imagine just possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
With shares in all the world…

You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you’ll join us
And the world will be a patchwork one.

(At this point, the intruder was forcibly removed from the stage.)

Erebus Reply:January 25th, 2016 at 6:30 pm

>Often you have to be smarter here and control behavior that does not lead to directly harming others but quite likely will, because it kills an individuals ability for impulse control.

Such as? And, besides, isn’t that what tradition, family, and religion are for?

I think that impulse control is almost entirely genetic, by the way. Polymorphs to the D3 dopamine receptor gene (DRD3), among a few others like SERT and MAOA, have been implicated in poor impulse control and spontaneity. It’s interesting to note that D3 agonist drugs can cause impulse control disorders as a side effect — but these disorders apparently tend to manifest as “pathological gambling, hypersexuality, and compulsive shopping”. Not the sort of behavior that needs top-down governmental control.

Generally, I believe that drug violence is primarily a cultural thing (ghetto honor culture), and is driven neither by innate impulse control disorders, nor by impulse control issues secondary to drug use.

>The other issue is the tacit assumption that individuals will either improve or starve to death if the market does not reward their behavior. No. They will grab guns and go down fighting, or become gangsters, or vote for socialists.

-Ideally, how they vote shouldn’t matter.
-They’re not going to grab guns and go down fighting. Certainly not to a greater extent than men do today, in any case. Nor to a greater extent than our 19th century ancestors. What has convinced you otherwise?
-There will always be gangsters. But in an AnCap/libertarian society, what do they have to offer? Black market goods and services? Protection rackets? In other words, they’d attempt to assume the role of government?

I generally agree with the rest of your points. The elites need to have skin in the game. Very important.

Such as? And, besides, isn’t that what tradition, family, and religion are for?

For the major categories of unwanted behavior, that has historically been what the law is for. The deterrence of behaviors left to “tradition, family, and religion” have been steadily eroded. Why would a hyper-capitalistic society also be a hyper-traditional, familial, or religious society? Most examples would demonstrate the opposite conclusion, that hyper-anything does so at the cost of the -anything else.

-They’re not going to grab guns and go down fighting. Certainly not to a greater extent than men do today, in any case. Nor to a greater extent than our 19th century ancestors. What has convinced you otherwise?

The multitudes of armed revolutions brought about by those with resentment against systems perceived as unjust.

-There will always be gangsters. But in an AnCap/libertarian society, what do they have to offer? Black market goods and services? Protection rackets? In other words, they’d attempt to assume the role of government?

Historically, exactly this. Which then leads to attempts to create a power to counter it.

Erebus Reply:January 25th, 2016 at 8:06 pm

>”For the major categories of unwanted behavior, that has historically been what the law is for. The deterrence of behaviors left to “tradition, family, and religion” have been steadily eroded. Why would a hyper-capitalistic society also be a hyper-traditional, familial, or religious society? Most examples would demonstrate the opposite conclusion, that hyper-anything does so at the cost of the -anything else.”

Historically? I’m not so sure. Laws prohibiting gambling generally date back to the mid-19th century, but were not well enforced until the 20th. Laws prohibiting narcotic use, quite prevalent in 19th century society, didn’t get going at all until the 20th. Prostitution was exceedingly popular in Victorian England — and was almost entirely unregulated. Laws which control that sort of behavior are by no means ancient. (Of course, laws which prohibit violent crime, fraud, heresy, and similar things are as old as civilization itself.)

There’s no reason a hyper-capitalistic society would necessarily need to cast off religion, or tradition, or family. Having those things is, of course, infinitely preferable to a paternalistic government where narrow-shouldered bureaucrats attempt to assume every burden. And as I’ve noted many times: Man must have some sort of religion — or at least religio, the semblance and trappings of religion. It is too meaningful and beneficial, on a societal level, to do without. (Jim, Spandrell, and others have made this point before — and in a much more forceful and detailed way.)

…But it’s very true that religion, tradition, etc. are waning. I think that this has less to do with capitalism per se, and much to do with our dysgenic society, with our degraded aesthetic and cultural lives, and with the way children are educated, particularly in religion and history. And all of this has, of course, a great deal to do with Cultural Marxism & the cult of equality. Old Europe would seem shockingly “libertarian” to modern sentiments — in almost every way that counts — but it was composed of strong societies which set traditions… much unlike our degraded, decadent society, where traditions die. Or are murdered, rather.

Different T Reply:January 25th, 2016 at 9:19 pm

There’s no reason a hyper-capitalistic society would necessarily need to cast off religion, or tradition, or family.

“religion or tradition” would be constraints against capital accumulation as prime value. If capital accumulation isn’t the prime value, how could the society call itself “hyper-capitalistic?” If the religion/tradition doesn’t proffer its own prime value, how could they be considered religions/traditions?

Old Europe would seem shockingly “libertarian” to modern sentiments — in almost every way that counts — but it was composed of strong societies which set traditions… much unlike our degraded, decadent society, where traditions die. Or are murdered, rather.

Aren’t you simply saying that “Old Europeans” had the same traditions. That “libertarianism” (voluntary action) flourishes when everyone chooses the same action?

Well, that is one way to approach it. This explains how various groups inside the US approach L. differently. I does not completely explain why almost no nation outside the US has any interest in L. I can try to explain it.

Basically, L. requires that either you are already the most powerful and richest nation on Earth or sufficiently isolated from the meddling of others anyway. If you aren’t, if there is chance that rich foreigners could buy up half your economy and then boss you around, then you will be a nationalist, not libertarian or ancap. You will want your government to protectionist, and intervent in all kinds of ways so that to ensure rich foreigners will not get much higher status than you in your own country.

And this is why, for example, the de Benoist type French New Right is no Libertarian. They are really, really pissed off by “McDonaldsization” i.e. American cultural influence (but not only of the left Cathedral type of influence but also the not so leftie type corporate influence) because they think their status is inherently linked to traditional French culture and when rich yanks seem to be able to easily change their culture through the overwhelming force of being far richer and thus their kids focus more on Disney than French folk tales or something, they feel they are losing relative status. And this fear is more or less valid.

So if your nation is not already the winner or sufficiently isolated from intrusions of richer foreign cultures, nationalism is a more likely right-wing outcome than libertarianism.

Libertarianism for a nation can only be popular if you strongly feel nobody really threatens the collective status and prestige of the nation as such. If yes, your instincts will go for nationalism and protectionism.

I think it’s about guns more than anything. A disarmed populace, almost by definition, cannot be libertarian. They’ll understand at an instinctual level that being a libertarian is not an option for them. America is truly unique in that regard. For all their faults and delusions, founders managed to plant the seed of a possible escape device into the very heart of American culture. Second Amendment as an escape hatch might just prove to work after all.

Not just guns, but the warrior culture of individual prowess and taking zero shit from anyone. The Protestant middle-classers are shit at running culture, even though they make great shopkeepers. The idea of warriors and showy display as a good, beautiful and necessary thing is verbotten not only among leftists and the feminized, but even the patriarchal and capitalist culture. This is why the idea of a uniform morality is absurd: what’s good and useful for Merchants and farmers is not the appropriate mode of conduct or values of an aristocracy, which is why NRxrs who want a corporate management/Omegistan ‘aristocracy’ are out of their mind. Part of the reason Europe fell to revolution is precisely because aristos became a bunch of money-grubbing faggots who weren’t willing to split skulls. European high civilization absolute requires Conan, Europe without the Kshatriya class is a McDonalds caricature of the West.

It’s not about crudely replacing manlet Brahmins with Brock Lesnar Kshatriyas, it’s about creating a new warrior class redpilled and knowledgeable enough that leftist social science Brahmins become redundant and can be culled.

“The nation that will insist on drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking done by cowards.” – Sir William Francis Butler

R.J. Moore II Reply:January 26th, 2016 at 11:31 pm

Well, the Aristos have to be house-trained – they are barbarians by archetype, if not actual occupation. Of course (contrary to Hollywood myths) many large, violent-ish men are actually reasonably intelligent (which would include Lesnar, Schwarzenegger and the fictional Conan). But the point I was making was that replacing our current Brahmins is only half the problem, the tiered-society and elitist individualism of the West is highly dependent on there being self-centered, thumotic death machines at the apex (or at least imagining themselves there, granted that Brahmins are pretty clever devils at manipulating ego and morality). Have you read Ricardo Duchesne, “The Uniqueness of Western Civilization”?

I am inclided to agree. Of course rifles cannot stand up to tanks, but if and when things get there the pretense of democracy is over and at least everybody sees it is naked tyranny. And politicians are snipable.

However. This isn’t even about legislation. It is all about America, being a younger country, has game to hunt and lots of rural folks for whom it is a major hobby, and also farmers need to do pest control, while game is on the verge of extinction in Europe and it is an expensive, tightly regulated pastime for rich elites, and no to little rifle-based pest control is needed. The NRA, and handgun concealed carry, and everything is holding out because their backbone is hunters. Because there is game to hunt. While I, a Euro, get almost shocked when a friend says he saw a wild hog outside a zoo. Even the rare case of finding animal tracks in the forest feels I am fucking Winnetou. Without game to hunt there cannot really be much of a gun culture, people find other hobbies than putting holes into paper.

Thumotic death machines don’t have to be frontiersmen, they have to be full-time warriors. In the modern era artillery has made physical prowess and bravery somewhat less important, but leadership, decisiveness and reliability can not be replaced (effectively) by bureaucratic tyranny. I believe that a ‘mercenary’ or otherwise private army would generate aristocratic elites that are currently ruled-out-of-existence by the peasant conscript forces our middle-class managerial society prefers. Modern tech did not kill chivalry, bureaucracy and the values of the bourgeusie ‘nice guy’ did.

Or it could be that Europeans are prone to excessive holiness signaling, whether along demotic lines or otherwise. Europeans (central and western) have primarily been threatened (biologically) by other Europeans for the last 3000 years. If your competition for status and resources is your cousin you’re going to find ways to distinguish yourself. Out breeding selects for narcissism.

A narcissism that can be quite attractive in the proper social context. ‘Peacock Men’ as you might as well call Indo-European elites, are the epitome of the natural morality of the Master class, i.e. they like strong men, beautiful women, rich lands, etc. and don’t have a concept of putting failure on a pedastal (granted intermediate stages exist in actual history). What we call ‘narcissism’ is only a ‘disorder’ when it’s not properly situated, likewise with ‘OCD’ and many other traits of the pseudo-science of mental moralizing. Even the obnoxious traits of women are fine if they stay in the kitchen and don’t imagine themselves capable of running the world without male assistance.

All people are not equal. In fact, two individuals who are in every socially discernible way the same, have an infinite number of differences between them. When those people have evolved for thousands of years in radically different environments, those people will have even greater differences between them. Such differences will include but not be limited to intelligence, propensity for violence, and propensity for cooperation

reactionary realism/rationalism . the social order is both societal and biological

what do libertarians think they will do if someone breaks a contract or steals their patent they must believe in some limited government this distinguishes them from anarchists.While quite a lot can be privatized govt can best manage some things national defense border control among them. I can see some private policing and courts but not entirely conflicts of interest arise.

I think Feudalism was for all intents and purposes AnCap of the Middle Ages. When I think about post Roman collapse Europe, I imagine something very close to AnCap. Every market anarchist seems to have his special snowflake idea of anarchism, but in the end, when you get down to how communities and policing and judicial affairs will function, it becomes indiscernible from panarchism, or a combination of natural aristocracy and feudalism.

+1. Even though I don’t agree with a lot of the superstition and so forth I think the ‘feudal’ style of the HRE is essentially what AnCapistan should aim for. Of course, Europe had a ruling, violent aristocracy who were themselves the military, which is why I find the Absolutist model of powder-whigged fairies and corporate managers to be a sort of Oriental caricature. An aristocracy that is not a fighting class is a parasite.

Different T Reply:January 26th, 2016 at 6:23 am

I think Feudalism was for all intents and purposes AnCap of the Middle Ages.

And your claim is that hyper-capitalism is going to occur in a Feudal order?

frank Reply:January 26th, 2016 at 11:25 am

An updated version of Feudalism is the best Capital can do as long as it uses humans — or at least current stock of humans — to do its bidding. There’s no hyper-capitalist political frictionless paradise. All you can do is minimize friction.

R. J. Moore II Reply:January 27th, 2016 at 10:11 am

What Frank says is a reason I consider eugenics + other bioengineering techniques to be essential for the preservation of AnCapistan beyond its initial ‘founding’ – in the long run, demographics and wealth work against libertarianish, K-selective societies but mainly because of the deficiencies of these populations – theoretically, 150 IQ muscle-men with plenty of personal agency and trillions of dollars could outbreed or underbreed normies and still waste them in a stand-up fight, and probably just control them without having to. As long as our own populations stand a chance of becoming aimless lefties and lumpenproles we’ll always be at risk from our own success.

frank Reply:January 27th, 2016 at 2:50 pm

Humans might have already missed the chance to join the ride though. Eugenics have fundamental biological and temporal restrictions built into it. To me, it looks like it’s too late for it to keep up with silicon based developments.

R. J. Moore II Reply:January 28th, 2016 at 12:30 am

While I don’t doubt that AI is in principle possible I think people vastly overrate how close we are. Human science barely understands the brain. Also as IQs drop and capital is squandered on NegroTech like iPods we’re getting further and further away from a Skynet solution (which I am 100% fine with, even if it involves nuking half the American cities, fuck those people). Strong AI and strong automation in general depend on a level of human capital to get there which we may be losing. Re: too late for eugenics, we’ve always been ‘too late’ for the world masses, but localized and intensive eugenics can pull you away from the herd and create a permanent post-human race that will make menschen obsolete. Granted, Skynet and Khan are both problematic politically and technically, but we already have intelligent human beings with great personal talents, so far the most expensive machine in the world is just an overcomplicated calculator.

frank Reply:January 28th, 2016 at 9:18 pm

Strong AI looks like a problem of lowering computational cost to me. As a player of Go myself, a computer that can beat humans is almost already thinking like–or better than–humans. Lower the cost of petaflops/s capable machines to less than $1000 dollars, and you’re pretty much done. We’re on track to achieve this by 2025. This is what I mean by “too late for eugenics”. A single eugenic improvement takes a generation. Silicon based intelligence will surpass human intelligence in less than a human generation’s time. Once that happens, humans will be that frizzly mulatto chick screaming through an AI’s sound receptors to check its privilege. I don’t think it will take long for it to read–or figure out on its own–Moldbug’s stuff.

Different T Reply:January 28th, 2016 at 9:30 pm

If after reading that article about the AlphaGo program you still think the Cathedral is inhibiting intelligence optimization to any meaningful degree…

Grotesque Body Reply:January 28th, 2016 at 10:31 pm

@frank,

Have you read Hubert Dreyfus?

frank Reply:January 29th, 2016 at 2:10 am

@Different T

It is doing what it can. Suppressing nuclear power alone has arguably slowed intelligenic process considerably.

@Grotesque Body

No. I’ve once glossed over his wiki page and didn’t find him interesting enough.

R. J. Moore II Reply:February 2nd, 2016 at 1:38 pm

No godzillions of petaflops will matter if you don’t have intelligence. Computing is not intelligence, ‘information’ does not exist without an end-user to interpret it. So, no, AI is not any closer regardless of how many godzillions of bytes you can process for negative ten cents. If you don’t have the physical architecture to generate actual qualitative comprehension and logical capacity then all you have is a calculator. And go can be beat by calculators because it’s a bunch of dots on a board. Try to get meaningful investment data from a computer and you generate yourself into a banking collapse. I am with Searle; while man-made intelligence is certainly not ruled out by any law I know of it is sheer projection to treat fucking babbages machines as ‘intelligent’.

I can’t speak for anyone else, but for me it’s not about my status (I am a social recluse and kind of a misanthrope generally) but an aesthetic. American society is basically oven-material at present, and if the West loses that Faustian spirit that built full plate armor, Standard Oil, Aeschylus and satellite communications we’re basically a waste of resources and should just let the Old Chinesians take over the world (as they may well, anyway).

In the US, the disposition towards libertarianism is inflated by the fact that libertarianism has been the primary alternative ideology to mainstream politics. There will always be people disaffected with a political duopoly and mainstream politics, but most people aren’t going to devise their own ideologies and politics. They will just attach themselves to the pre-existing, available alternatives. In Europe, nationalism and national socialism are among the primary alternatives, and those disillusioned with mainstream politics tend to become attracted to those ideologies rather than libertarianism.

It’s easy to imagine how a more homogeneous US would have ended up much less libertarian and a much stronger social-democratic welfare state, like most other European polities.

It would still be more productive and socialy libertarian because of white personality tendencies. It takes profound breakdowns of trust and atomizations of the post-WW era and multi-cult self-destruction to make welfare states into shitholes, rather than merely suboptimal. Now I hate welfare state societies in principle, but at least they’d be tolerable compared to the Mediastapo Mediocracy we have.

As a matter of simple socio-cultural documentation, this is the thought-process that leads libertarian realists to discover they have crossed over to the Outer Right:

For most though, libertarianism is just a way station to the “Outer Right”. Most realize that they were never really libertarians and don’t really give a shit about libertarianism. It’s just that libertarianism was there when they became dissatisfied with mainstream politics and wanted something more, something different.

This guy though seems a bit too invested in libertarianism, with a persona and an internet radio show and everything, to just casually move on.

Ignore NAP screaming and liberal-Jew policy wonking, and you’re left with a lot of stuff that comes out of Greek philosophy, medieval law and the highest values of Germanic tribal societies. Contra the 14/88 crowd’s fondest wishes, libertarianism sans the religious baggage is very European and very traditional; Europeans are the Faustian, elitist race in practice even if we adopted a really Cuckish religion that worships losers and apocalyptic lefties.

I think ad hoc ideological genealogies can be drawn up for almost anything. Like Mencius Moldbug’s genealogy of contemporary leftism back to Puritanism, which is controversial even among the Right.

I don’t think libertarianism has much to do with, say, Germanic tribal societies at all, and the kind of people who are libertarians today would be very uncomfortable in such societies and would have much trouble fitting in, so to speak:

The type of people who think they support libertarianism also have no real understanding of it, 80+% of the time. The Hanseatic League or Germanic Thing law customs, etc. are all remarkably parallel to the ‘propertarian/every many a warrior’ practical sentiments of frontier/rural conservative-libertarian thought, but the doxxed peacenick liberalized NAP crowd are a religious superstructure created by Progressives and Jews uncomfortable or ignorant of its parallels and roots. Look at Lon L. Fuller’s “The Morality of Law” and the like, it has nothing to do with morality at all, it’s all about property and the logic of legal disputation. Moralized libertarianism is inherently vulgar and Cthulhu’d i.e. Leftward drifting. This is why Conan is better libertarian propaganda than FreeTalkLive, the latter being a gay leftist caricature.

I disagree that “moralized libertarianism” is an entirely different animal. Fuller attacked positivism and advocated a kind of secular natural law view. Contemporary “moral libertarianism” is based on secularized natural law.

Secularized natural law is not moral in any sense most people would recognize. Like De Jasay, or the less successful Hoppe/Habermas approach, it has to do with the nature of disputation over resources and liability. The deontological claim that you ‘SHOULDN’T’ violate property has to be distinguished from the case that doing so is unjust. Law is a service, justice is a profession, morality is for priests.

so, i’m Brazilian, and the libertarian movement here is quite much NOT composed mostly of white males, much less of pure white, anglo-dutch or in any clear sense “European” descent. a good deal of the prominent leader’s of the movement are indeed of black descent.

so I guess some theories have a hard time meeting the reality of Brazil.